A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to the coercion disorder, alcohol addiction, depression, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The case of applying for compensation order pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by filing an appeal against the accused accused case, was transferred to the court of the first instance along with the accused case, but there is no reason for reversal ex officio without stating the grounds for appeal concerning the petition of appeal or the grounds for appeal.

As to the claim of mental disability, the defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected this part of the claim on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is acceptable, and it is difficult to deem that there were errors alleged as grounds for appeal.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, there are grounds to consider the Defendant’s argument of unfair sentencing, such as the confession of the instant crime, the victim K does not want the Defendant’s punishment at the lower court, and some of the damaged goods were recovered by temporary return, etc., in favor of the Defendant’s sentencing.

However, considering that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant habitually intruded into an abandoned house and attempted to steals or steals property over 45 times, and the nature of the crime was not somewhat weak in light of the circumstances leading up to and the method of the crime, etc., the Defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated larceny even though he was sentenced seven times due to the same habitual larceny crime, which again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated larceny, the frequency of the crime amounting to 45 times, the amount of damage reaches approximately KRW 18 million, and the amount of damage was three years after the sentence of the judgment below, the Sentencing Committee in this case where there was no change of circumstances after the sentence of the judgment below.